Is the DM always right?

[kitsune9]

So in 4e, do you guys still think the DM's rule is final? As long as the DM is not saying something along the lines of "you can't do that becasue I say so" or something to that nature. Frankly I have been playing D&D and other RPG's for damn near twenty years and it is something I have become used to - the DM as an arbiter of sorts.

On my take, it seems that you have a player who is more interested in being a controller than actually a rules lawyer. This sounds more like a personality issue in which the group needs to address the behavior of this player and come some kind of solution.

On my take of rpgs in general, the DM's rule is final just to get the game moving, particularly in instances where rules are not clear-cut and/or too much time is being spent either arguing over a rule that can or cannot be found. However, if the DM is doing something.....different.....like for example saying that a player who rolls a nat 20 missed, the DM better have a really good reason.

In my current gaming group, DM judgements are based on game expectations and our group's social contract. Our group's social contract is that we all want to play by the rules as they are written so if I'm wrong on the call, the players are well within their rights to call me on it and rule lawyer me so long as they find the appropriate rule. I get called out all the time and it doesn't bother me so long as we're all learning from the rules as presented. If we cannot agree on an interpretation, then I tell them I'm making a decision and we're moving on.

I know others will have different takes on this which is cool. The ultimate thing is whether or not your game is fun for everyone so any expectation is acceptable so long as everyone is having an enjoyable experience.

Happy Gaming!

 

[Rezzin]

To clarify we are good friends but we can butt heads from time to time in game. Everything is fine once the dice are scooped up off the table but it seems that all of our games recently have been riddled with strife.

 

[Blackbrrd]

my general rule of thumb is that no more than 30 seconds or so should be spent arbitrating a rule. After that, the DM should make a temporary call. After that session, away from the table, any amount of detailed rules lookup should be done to determine the by the book rule.

My only general exception to this is life-death sorts of situations. Those matter a lot to get something right.

That said, my general opinion on rule adjudication is that you should always decide in favor of the more awesome option. "Can I use mage hand to tip the giant stewpot over onto the bad guys?" IMO, that sounds awesome, and so it works at least once.

This is how we play it.

We look up rules AFTER the session so that we can get on with the game. There is nothing more annoying than somebody taking 10 minutes to get +1 to hit.

On the other hand I have played with a DM that always said NO to everything. That makes me not want to play. I don't argue with the DM while playing though. I discuss it afterwards. If we don't get to an agreement I will stop playing as a player with that person as a DM. I have no problems DM-ing the same person though.

 

[kitsune9]

To clarify we are good friends but we can butt heads from time to time in game. Everything is fine once the dice are scooped up off the table but it seems that all of our games recently have been riddled with strife.

Sometimes good friends are good friends when they do not feel they are in some kind of competition mode (player vs. DM). I had a really good buddy too, but I just could not game with him in any way shape or form. It seemed like we became different people.

My current gaming group is kind of like that too. I have two players that like butt heads at the table from time-to-time, but off-game they're totally cool with each other. Though it doesn't seem to really escalate in the manner that you've described.

Someone had similar issues with rules lawyers and/or problem players and posted on a thread here a while back about the usefulness of a social contract, a written set of rules of game behavior for the DM and players. For some groups, this really worked out well as it clearly established boundaries in the game. Players know they've crossed the line when they violate the social contract.

Ooopss...I got off-topic. Hopefully, you'll work out a solution with your friends! Good luck!

 

[pascale]

No. the DM is fallable. Just becuase your the DM does mean that you are no longer capable of making a mistake or gettng a rules call wrong. Your human and all humans make mistakes. Rule zero, and having the final say is not the smae as always right. It means that whether you are right or wrong what you decide for the ruling is the way it is played. That is different from being always right.

On that not Rule zero- and the DM is the final arbitor of the rules is not an excuse for not knowing the rules. If you're wrong, be big enough to admit it. If you think don't know the rule, fine either make an on the fly ruling and look it up later, or go with the book ruling if it canbe found quickly enough.

The important thing to remeber is that this game is group activity and everyones fun must be acoed for. taht includes the players who want to know that they can count of the rules being enforced consistantly and fairly. Fun for the DM who just wants to run a fun game, and fun for the players wish everyone would just shut up so they can get on with the game.

 

[Pbartender]

For me, this:

I'm perfectly happy to discuss the reasoning behind my rulings while running a game. Players change my mind pretty often, actually! But if a player gets argumentative, I pretty much cut them off. The rest of us keep moving, and if the player is really upset, we can talk about it after the game. And if they continue to be disruptive, they can feel free to leave my house.

I'm not always right, but I've always got a good reason. So long as they aren't being pests about it, players are welcome to try to convince me otherwise between games. If they present a good argument, I've been known to change my mind.

acoed

You know... It took me nearly five minutes to figure out what that word is supposed to be, and which misspelling mutated it into its present form.

 

[Garthanos]

this is almost the only thread I have ever seen that if I was moderator I would have moved to general ....

 

[Nifft]

I'm quoting someone here:

"The DM isn't necessarily right, but what he says goes."

DMs should use this power responsibly, or their players will go, too.

Cheers, -- N

 

[babinro]

For the purpose of a session running smoothly, I feel DM ruling should be law when something can be justified in multiple ways. After the session though, the group should come to an agreement on how such dealings will be handled in all future games for consistency.

When I DM, I'll typically side with the majority when issues come up that we cannot truly answer. If I later find out on boards that I was wrong, the group will often change the rules without much fuss.

I try to keep the players happy though. If we misinterpret a daily power and find out it doesn't work as was intended...I'll let the player choose a new daily on the fly rather than make them play something they don't want for the rest of the level.

 

[BobTheNob]

Before we started our campaign, I layed down ground rules for handling of these disputes. I actually typed up a document to let players understand their rights in regard to disputing my decisions. We play with that framework and it helps players understand the right point in time to speak up, and the right time to shutup.

Core tenants
1. Once a decision is made, thats it. If new evidence can be brought to the table, a decision can be re-examined.
2. DM has the right of "non precedent" decision. This means they can state a decision without it being used as historical example (sounds narky, but I use it all the time. VERY useful ability)
3. If something in core rules is proving under or over powered, the DM reserves the right to alter said rule. In the case of this the DM has responsibility to aid adversly effected characters in consideration of maintaining viability.
4. DM has the right to trump rules if they are not a neat fit with the scenario in question (I dont exercise this very often...it is not fun for the players. I just reserve the right)
5. HAVE FUN!!!!
6...

There are more...cant remember them all off hand, but those are the big ones.

At the end of the day, the GM is like a high court judge. They have to make decisions regarding interpretation of the law while considering more than just the law itself. They are a level above and also have to consider the impact of laws on society, and do things like say "Yes, according to that technicality this mass murderer needs to be let out of jail, but Im not going to rule in your favor because the net result is he will murder more people" and try and do that all within a framework called the law whilst contributing to the evolution of the law.

I wont claim to get everything decision right but what I will say is that every decision I make is for the good of the game. I make my reasoning transparent and allow the players the right of rebuttle.

But once I have made a decision...thats it.

It doesnt make me a nazi, it makes me a person with a job to do.